AA6 欢迎拍

louify

6. The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life.

“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”

顺便问大致上写多少字比较合适?

In this argument, the author recommends that the city of Helios is a good choice for corporations which are seeking new business opportunities and new location. To support the conclusion, the author cites that Helios's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average in the recent recession. In addition, the author also points out that Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies. Close scrutiny reveals that the reasoning employed is invalid and hence the recommendation is unconvincing due to several logic flaws.

 

Firstly, the conclusion relies on the assumption that Helios's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average in the recent recession, so the unemployment rate of Helios will be low continuously in the future. But it is not necessarily the case, perhaps just because of the city's new measures against the recession, the unemployment rate is lower. And these measures are harm to the economic development in the long term of the future. Lacking more completely information about the reason of the low unemployment rate, we cannot assume that the Helios's unemployment rate will be low continuously in the future.

 

Secondly, even if it is granted that the unemployment rate will be continuously low in the future, we have not any evidences to believe that the low unemployment can be a advantage to the new business for a corporation. In fact, it is more likely the low unemployment rate will cause higher salary and low productivity. The employees are no incentives to work hard due the qualified workers are rare, employers have no much choice. In this condition, the low unemployment rate is just a disadvantage for a new location. Without detail analysis of the connection between the unemployment rate and the new location, the author's recommendation is unconvincing.

 

Finally, the argument rests on the claim that since Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies, Helios can be a good choice to be a new location for corporations. However, the evidence offered is insufficient to support this claim. It is possible that Helios has subjective desires to attracting this kind of companies, but it doesn't create any preferential policy actually, and thus Helios doesn't has any advantage to attracting these companies.

 

Consequently, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author recommends. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information to rule out the abovementioned possibilities that would undermine the author’s recommendation.

 

 

rio

不要多于550吧

我看看

rio

In this argument, the author recommends that the city of Helios is a good choice for corporations which(that) are seeking new business opportunities and new location. To support the conclusion, the author cites that Helios's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average in the recent recession. In addition, the author also points out that Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies. Close scrutiny reveals that the reasoning employed is invalid and hence the recommendation is unconvincing due to several logic flaws.

 

Firstly, the conclusion relies on the assumption that Helios's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average in the recent recession, so the unemployment rate of Helios will be low continuously in the future. But it is not necessarily the case, perhaps just because of the city's new measures
                (please give specific instances to strengthen your argument) against the recession, the unemployment rate is lower. And these measures are harm to the economic development in the long term of the future. Lacking more completely information about the reason of the low unemployment rate, we cannot assume that the Helios's unemployment rate will be low continuously in the future.

 

Secondly, even if it is granted that the unemployment rate will be continuously low in the future, we have not any evidences to believe that the low unemployment can be a advantage to the new business for a corporation. In fact, it is more likely the low unemployment rate will cause higher salary and low productivity. The employees are no incentives to work hard due the qualified workers are rare, employers have no much choice. (the employees have no incentive to work hard due to the rarity of qualified workers…) In this condition, the low unemployment rate is just a disadvantage for a new location. Without detail analysis of the connection between the unemployment rate and the new location, the author's recommendation is unconvincing.

 

Finally, the argument rests on the claim that since Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies, Helios can be a good choice to be a new location for corporations. However, the evidence offered is insufficient to support this claim. It is possible that Helios has subjective desires to attracting this kind of companies, but it doesn't create any preferential policy actually, and thus Helios doesn't has any advantage to attracting these companies.

 

Consequently, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author recommends. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information to rule out the abovementioned possibilities that would undermine the author’s recommendation.

总结说一句，这个魔板用得太多了吧，还是稍微修改一下

Cantaloupe

观点补充：1. casual oversimplication（无因果联系）.The evidence author cited can not directly support the conclusion. Lower unemployment rate might mean higher consumption level of citizens, while adversely it might lead to more competitiveness and higher salary level which are bad for corporation.

2. Sweeping generation. Whether a city is good for business, it depends on specific industry, corporation size, city population, consumption habit, etc, not on unemployment rate. E.g, If Helios is a labor intensive city, then lack of advanced educated human resources will make Helios a less ideal place for knowledge intensive entreprises; If citizen of Helios doesn't usually spend much in luxury brand, it might be not a good place for luxury product industry.

Furthermore, as an industrial centre, Helios might be worse in environment than other cities. It might be a negative factor when choose location. In addition, If the economic base will be succefully expanded by "research and innovative technologies" is not sure, either.